Friday, September 30, 2022

American Betrayal



"It is not simply a good book about history. It is one of those books which makes history. ... "

-- Vladimir Bukovsky, co-founder of the Soviet dissident movement and author of Judgment in Moscow, and Pavel Stroilov, author of Behind the Desert Storm.

"Diana West is distinguished from almost all political commentators because she seeks less to defend ideas and proposals than to investigate and understand what happens and what has happened. This gives her modest and unpretentious books and articles the status of true scientific inquiry, shifting the debate from the field of liking and disliking to being and non-being."

-- Olavo de Carvalho

If you're looking for something to read, this is the most dazzling, mind-warping book I have read in a long time. It has been criticized by the folks at Front Page, but they don't quite get what Ms. West has set out to do and accomplished. I have a whole library of books on communism, but -- "Witness" excepted -- this may be the best.

-- Jack Cashill, author of Deconstructing Obama: The Lives, Loves and Letters of America's First Postmodern President and First Strike: TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America

"Every once in a while, something happens that turns a whole structure of preconceived ideas upside down, shattering tales and narratives long taken for granted, destroying prejudice, clearing space for new understanding to grow. Diana West's latest book, American Betrayal, is such an event."

 -- Henrik Raeder Clausen, Europe News

West's lesson to Americans: Reality can't be redacted, buried, fabricated, falsified, or omitted. Her book is eloquent proof of it.

-- Edward Cline, Family Security Matters

"I have read it, and agree wholeheartedly."

-- Angelo Codevilla, Professor Emeritus of International Relations at Boston Unversity, and fellow of the Claremont Institute. 

Enlightening. I give American Betrayal five stars only because it is not possible to give it six.

-- John Dietrich, formerly of the Defense Intelligence Agency and author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy.

After reading American Betrayal and much of the vituperation generated by neoconservative "consensus" historians, I conclude that we cannot ignore what West has demonstrated through evidence and cogent argument.

-- John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D., Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

"A brilliantly researched and argued book."

-- Edward Jay Epstein, author of Deception: The Invisible War between the KGB and the CIA, The Annals 0f Unsolved Crime 

"This explosive book is a long-needed answer to court histories that continue to obscure key facts about our backstage war with Moscow. Must-reading for serious students of security issues and Cold War deceptions, both foreign and domestic."

-- M. Stanton Evans, author of Stalin's Secret Agents and Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies

Her task is ambitious; her sweep of crucial but too-little-known facts of history is impressive; and her arguments are eloquent and witty. ... American Betrayal is one of those books that will change the way many of us see the world.

-- Susan Freis Falknor, Blue Ridge Forum

"American Betrayal is absolutely required reading. Essential. You're sleepwalking without it."

-- Chris Farrell, director of investigations research, Judicial Watch

"Diana West wrote a brilliant book called American Betrayal, which I recommend to everybody ... It is a seminal work that will grow in importance." 

-- Newt Gingrich, former House Speaker 

"This is a must read for any serious student of history and anyone working to understand the Marxist counter-state in America."

-- John Guandolo, president, Understanding the Threat, former FBI special agent 

“What Diana West has done is to dynamite her way through several miles of bedrock. On the other side of the tunnel there is a vista of a new past. Of course folks are baffled. Few people have the capacity to take this in. Her book is among the most well documented I have ever read. It is written in an unusual style viewed from the perspective of the historian—but it probably couldn’t have been done any other way.”

-- Lars Hedegaard, historian, journalist, founder, Danish Free Press Society

The polemics against your Betrayal have a familiar smell: The masters of the guild get angry when someone less worthy than they are ventures into the orchard in which only they are privileged to harvest. The harvest the outsider brought in, they ritually burn.

-- Hans Jansen, former professor of Islamic Thought, University of Utrecht 

No book has ever frightened me as much as American Betrayal. ... [West] patiently builds a story outlining a network of subversion so bizarrely immense that to write it down will seem too fantastic to anyone without the book’s detailed breadth and depth. It all adds up to a story so disturbing that it has changed my attitude to almost everything I think about how the world actually is. ... By the time you put the book down, you have a very different view of America’s war aims and strategies. The core question is, did the USA follow a strategy that served its own best interests, or Stalin’s? And it’s not that it was Stalin’s that is so compelling, since you knew that had to be the answer, but the evidence in detail that West provides that makes this a book you cannot ignore. 

-- Steven Kates, RMIT (Australia) Associate Professor of Economics, Quadrant

"Diana West's new book rewrites WWII and Cold War history not by disclosing secrets, but by illuminating facts that have been hidden in plain sight for decades. Furthermore, she integrates intelligence and political history in ways never done before."

-- Jeffrey Norwitz, former professor of counterterrorism, Naval War College

[American Betrayal is] the most important anti-Communist book of our time ... a book that can open people's eyes to the historical roots of our present malaise ... full of insights, factual corroboration, and psychological nuance. 

-- J.R. Nyquist, author, Origins of the Fourth World War 

Although I know [Christopher] Andrew well, and have met [Oleg] Gordievsky twice, I now doubt their characterization of Hopkins -- also embraced by Radosh and the scholarly community. I now support West's conclusions after rereading KGB: The Inside Story account 23 years later [relevant passages cited in American Betrayal]. It does not ring true that Hopkins was an innocent dupe dedicated solely to defeating the Nazis. Hopkins comes over in history as crafty, secretive and no one's fool, hardly the personality traits of a naïve fellow traveler. And his fingerprints are on the large majority of pro-Soviet policies implemented by the Roosevelt administration. West deserves respect for cutting through the dross that obscures the evidence about Hopkins, and for screaming from the rooftops that the U.S. was the victim of a successful Soviet intelligence operation.

-- Bernie Reeves, founder of The Raleigh Spy Conference, American Thinker

Diana West’s American Betrayal — a remarkable, novel-like work of sorely needed historical re-analysis — is punctuated by the Cassandra-like quality of “multi-temporal” awareness. ... But West, although passionate and direct, is able to convey her profoundly disturbing, multi-temporal narrative with cool brilliance, conjoining meticulous research, innovative assessment, evocative prose, and wit.

-- Andrew G. Bostom, PJ Media

Do not be dissuaded by the controversy that has erupted around this book which, if you insist on complete accuracy, would be characterized as a disinformation campaign.

-- Jed Babbin, The American Spectator

In American Betrayal, Ms. West's well-established reputation for attacking "sacred cows" remains intact. The resulting beneficiaries are the readers, especially those who can deal with the truth.

-- Wes Vernon, Renew America

If the Soviet penetration of Washington, D.C., was so wide and so deep that it functioned like an occupation …
If, as a result of that occupation, American statecraft became an extension of Soviet strategy …
If the people who caught on – investigators, politicians, defectors – and tried to warn the American public were demonized, ridiculed and destroyed for the good of that occupation and to further that strategy …
And if the truth was suppressed by an increasingly complicit Uncle Sam …

Would you feel betrayed?

Now available from St. Martin's Press, American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character

View Blog
Nov 15

Written by: Diana West
Friday, November 15, 2019 6:40 AM 

Amb. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick: the People's expert witness.


Now at The Epoch Times


Sharyl Attkisson delivered a much-needed civics lesson this week. She writes:

Under the U.S. Constitution, it is the president of the United States who determines foreign policy. How can President Trump be “at odds with foreign policy” when he’s the one who determines it?…

Good question. Short answer: He can't be. The dirty little secret that is the complicating factor is that the government all around President Trump, unaffectionately known as "the Swamp," is a grotesque, post-Constitutional entity in which unelected "officials," including diplomats, national security advisors, federal police and international spies, all together wield a kind of power that is wholly independent of the will of the People. Corrupted by this nearly absolute and illegitimate power, these overlords of the bureaucracy regard the duly elected president as an interloper in their midst -- certainly not the chief executive sent to Washington to execute the People's will, which, in electing Donald Trump in 2016, is well described as aggressively counter-revolutionary. To protect their power from the People, to save their stealth Revolution-from-within, the embedded subverters of the constitutional order -- "globalists," "internationalists," "big government socialists" and the like -- will stop at nothing to destroy Trump and his agenda of American Restoration. 

This, then, is just one of the levels of the civil war underway in a hearing room this week on Capitol Hill -- the battle over who sets the foreign policy of the United States. Citing the Constitution, Sharyl Attkisson makes it very clear who wins, easily and hands down. That complicating factor, however, remains. Americans have not come to terms with for generations, certainly BT (Before Trump), is the extent to which the utimate power of We, the People, has been usurped.

What follows is a lengthy excerpt from a speech I gave in the summer of 2016. It is titled "`America First' in America: 1940 to 2016." (Video here; published essay here.) The passage highlights the thinking of Amb. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick (1926 - 2006), who, in 1990, was making a case for a "normal"  foreign policy set by the People, not the "experts." Her argument articulates many of the same themes  Donald Trump took to the hustings in 2016 as his "America First" agenda. Would that the late Mrs. Kirkpatrick could be called as a people's expert witness in the ongoing impeachment farce. Below, however, is the crux of her thinking on this crucial matter.

From "`America First' in America: 1940 to 2016," by Diana West in the Journal of Strategy and Politics (Autumn 2017).

Back in 1990, even as the Soviet Union appeared to be disintegrating before our eyes, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, former UN Ambassador under President Reagan, published an essay in The National Interest called “A Normal Country in a Normal Time.” The “normal time” she referred to was what appeared to be the end of the Cold War. Kirkpatrick’s idea of a “normal country,” both what it does—and, as important, what it doesn’t do—complements some of the policies and ideas Donald Trumphas taken with him onto the hustings.

I’m not trying to make a case regarding the presidential preferences of the late Jeane Kirkpatrick, who died in December of 2006. But it is indisputable that her thinking as set forth in 1990 bears some striking similarities with Trump’s today, even in regard to US government responsibilities to negotiate favorable rules for American business internationally, reminiscent of Trump’s muscular America First trade policies; also her belief that the US should not spend American money to defend an affluent Japan, for example, which is in sync with some of the Trump’s ideas on this subject.

Kirkpatrick in 1990 was writing at the moment in time Trump said he believed America’s foreign policy went awry – at the end of what we know as the cold war. She offered a different way forward—not that there were any takers in Bush I’s New World Order administration.

Kirkpatrick wrote: “One of the most important consequences of the half century of war and Cold War has been to give foreign affairs an unnatural importance.” (Emphasis added.) It was time, she believed, to recalibrate American foreign policy. She explained: There is no foreign policy mandated in our founding documents—no mystical American ‘mission’ or purposes to be ‘found’ independently of the US Constitution and government.” She went on in this same vein: “There is no inherent or historical ‘imperative’ for the US government to seek or achieve any other goal—however great— except as it is mandated by the Constitution and adopted by the people through elected officials.” Among the goals that we do not have she included: “the establishment of democracy around the world,” “a stable world order” (which sounds like “new world order” to me); “a global trading system,” etc.—“unless,” she wrote, “such issues were discussed and endorsed by majorities of voters.”

This small-d democratic point of requiring the voters’ endorsement—or at least that of their elected representatives in the Congress—was also central to anti-interventionist arguments circa 1940. It was in this run-up to World War II where Congress’s constitutional powers to make war were first usurped by the President, as FDR took the country into war, step by step, without authorization, and later pushed for legislation that would give him new and unprecedented powers to make war—the Lend Lease bill. 

Secretary of State Stettinius described the foreign aid bill’s revolutionary properties. The change was in making “any country’s defense vital.”

Stettinius wrote: 

To favor limited aid to the Allies as an expedient device for saving friendly nations from conquest was one thing. To declare that the defense of those nations was “vital” to our own national security was quite another. If we adopted the bill with those words, we would, in effect, declare the interdependence of the American people with the other freedom-loving nations of the world … (emphasis added).

We did indeed adopt the Lend-Lease bill with those words, which, of course, provided aid to the Soviet Union—not a freedom-loving nation to be sure. This makes March 11, 1941, the day the Lend-Lease bill passed, America’s Interdependence Day. It no longer draws comment when American presidents declare the destinies of far-flung peoples “vital” to that of the United States, whether in Saudi Arabia (FDR), Iraq (Bush), or Afghanistan (Obama). And so many other places. Lately, it seems that the president doesn’t even bother as, for example, he sends more and more troops back to Iraq without even so much as a comment from Congress.

I think it’s important to note the godfathers of Lend Lease, which might well be seen as a founding document of the new world order. They were Armand Hammer, Harry Hopkins and Harry Dexter White. All three men were at the very least pro-Soviet to the core. White, a high-ranking Treasury official,has been confirmed as a top Soviet agent, the most important agent Soviets had inside the US government, say some— although others believe that Harry Hopkins, FDR’s closest aide who lived inside the White House for three years, earns that treasonous honor. Certainly, Hopkins’ apparent use of Lend Lease to send uranium and other atomic materials to the Soviets, thus breaking the embargo placed on uranium by Gen. Leslie Groves of the Manhattan Project, would seem to fit the bill.

Then again, White’s successful insertion of language into the US diplomatic cable flow to Japan—language written in Moscow to bring the US and Japan to war—is stiff competition. But these and so much more were post-war revelations—and rather soon forgotten. More lost history.

I’d like to mention another point of concern for “America First” and the anti-interventionists. They did not like the idea of going to war for an ideological mission, as FDR put it, for "our responsibility to build a democratic world." Such crusading is something Jeane Kirkpatrick quite specifically disavowed some fifty years later—at least sans popular support—just as Trump has done today more forcefully. In his recent address, Trump identified as “dangerous” the “idea that we could make western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interests in becoming a western democracy.” He promised: “We’re getting out of the nation-building business.” To that end, he also declared he was looking for a whole new set of foreign policy experts with practical ideas “rather than surrounding myself with those who have perfect résumés but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war.” For Washington’s entrenched andheretofore empowered—catastrophe. 

In 1990, Jeane Kirkpatrick also reflected on the foreign policy elite, writing: “It is frequently argued that foreign policy is so different from domestic policy that majority rule should not apply.” She believed, though, it was “more important than ever that the experts who conduct foreign policy on our behalf be subject to the directions and control of the people. “We should reject utterly any claim that foreign policy is the special claim of special people—beyond the control of those who must pay its costs and bear its consequences.“ She continued: “This means that discussion of the broad issues of foreign policy should have an important place in any election campaign.”

But Kirkpatrick had more than desire for a more perfect union. She explained: “Maintaining popular control of foreign policy is especially important because foreign policy elites often have different views than those of popular majorities.”

Aha. The experts vs. the people. Where did they come from, these experts? In Kirkpatrick’s telling, it was all a function of world war and cold war when “the United States developed a foreign policy elite based in bureaucracy, academics and heavily associated with nonprofit institutions.” Further: “They grew accustomed to thinking of the United States as having boundless resources and purposes which transcended the preferences of voters and apparent American interests.” In this way, she wrote,we see the development of what she called “a disinterested global attitude ….”

But notice the verbs Kirkpatrick chose: The United States “developed” this elite, whose members “grewaccustomed” to thinking past voter preferences and American interests. Just like that? I don’t think so. Not that these globalist attitudes didn’t become prevalent; they most certainly did. But I don’t it just happened. I don’t think it was … natural.

Let’s take another look at the creation of the post-World War II world in which these global attitudes, per Kirkpatrick, just “developed.” It is a fact that the central institutions of this, yes, new world order, which defines and perpetuates these same global attitudes, were set up by some of the literally hundreds of Communist agents confirmed to have been working under cover inside the federal government and related institutions. Take the United Nations, fostered and helmed in 1945 by decorated Soviet military intelligence officer Alger Hiss, also of the US StateDepartment. Take the International Monetary Fund, fostered and helmed in 1946 by confirmed Soviet agent Harry Dexter White, also of the US Treasury. Hiss and White are but two of the most famous Kremlin infiltrators, whose confirmed numbers, as noted above, top 500, and are estimated to reach the thousands.

When we couple this globalist infiltration and influence with the fact that the nation-state and its sovereignty, particularly our nation-state and our sovereignty, are the greatest obstacles to the continued spread of Marxisim-Leninism and its multitudinous offshoots, it seems logical to study, to wonder about, the impact of the ideological war waged by Marxists on the American mindset. This war certainly seems to have been a stunning and stealthy success.

Several months ago—26 years after Kirkpatrick’s “Normal Country” essay—the editor of The Washington Free Beacon, Matthew Continetti, who is also the son-in-law of The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, sought to explain the threat that Trump poses to the Republican Party for his rejecting theRepublicanism that Continetti says has defined the GOP since Ronald Reagan. This Republicanism, he wrote, includes being 1) internationalist in outlook; 2) pro-free trade; 3) pro-immigration; 4) supporting American leadership in global institutions. I can’t look at these markers without noticing that not only do they define a mindset that is the opposite of “America First,” but, atone time, these same positions defined the Left wing of the American political spectrum, even the far Left wing—even the Communist Party USA! This is in not an exaggeration.

In Toward Soviet America, the 1932 book by Communist Party USA Chairman William Z. Foster, Foster lists his predictions for Soviet America, many of which have actually come true, as Marxist ideology has subverted our institutions.

He writes: “A Communist world will be a unified, organized world.” (Remember Soviet agent Hiss, the first UN secretary general.) “The economic system will be one great organization, based upon the principle of planning now dawning in the U.S.S.R.” (Remember Soviet agent White, first executivedirector of the IMF in 1946.) Foster continues: “The American Soviet government will be an important section in this world organization. In such a society there will be no tariffs or the manyother barriers erected by capitalism against a free world interchange of goods. The raw material supplies of the world will be at the disposition of the peoples of the world.” Here we see it: free trade as just another weapon to break down the nationstate—the ultimate globalist / Communist / progressive / Marxist /Democrat and, now, GOP goal.

I will not promise here to tie everything up neatly, but I note that no one really tries to make sense of these ideological connections anymore. We don’t seem to think there are any. And if someone does, the response is to fall back on buzz words such as Red-baiting, McCarthyism, Fascism, and “isolationism,” which do not help us learn how better to protect and preserve our country.

Kirkpatrick also debunked the isolationism rap. She wrote: “The isolationism v. internationalism debate is in reality the debate among the various types of internationalism.” The first type “aims to serve the national interest as conventionally conceived (to protect its territory, wealth and access tonecessary goods; to defend its nationals).” The other variants of internationalism she saw circa 1990 aim to preserve and defend democracy, or advance a “disinterested globalism, which looks at the world and asks what needs to be done—with little explicit concern for the national interest.”

In recent years, these latter two seem to overlap if not also merge, which helps explain why so many Republican foreign policy elites, particularly neocons, are trumpeting their support for Hillary Clinton. The “national interest as conventionally conceived” is just not enough for them, even as serving American interests first is plenty for the many Republicans who have made Donald Trump their presidential nominee. It’s really as simple as that. ...







"A sterling example of penetrating counterintelligence analysis, the kind one seldom sees issuing from intelligence circles, let alone from a private researcher. Diana’s previous books mark her as one who goes far beyond the usual academic policy analysis, to penetrate to the heart of hidden history that seldom makes it to the light of day. Reading The Red Thread prompted me to recall Honoré de Balzac’s observation that there are two histories: the official one, mendacious; and the secret history, shameless, but the real cause of events. Diana West plumbs the depths of Balzac’s secret history in a way that surfaces the realities of an ideological underworld that too many deny and would rather not see exposed. Diana West is a one-person intelligence agency."

— John J. Dziak, Ph.D., former senior intelligence executive, author of Chekisty: A History of the KGB, Adjunct Professor at the Institute of World Politics, Washington, D.C.

"Once again, Diana West provides us with invaluable analysis, meticulously documented. She exposes the radical Leftist ideological roots of the Trump "lawfare” coup plotters masquerading as “respectable” Establishment law enforcement and intelligence professionals. Ms. West delivers facts, history,  documentation and context like no other. Her work in essential reading."

— Chris Farrell, Director of Investigations & Research for Judicial Watch. He is a former Military Intelligence officer and Special Agent of U.S. Army Counterintelligence. 

"An extraordinary contribution to understanding the struggle of our times. Diana West has once again done exhaustive research and unearthed a series of facts and connections which will change how you see the American left decisively. This is courageous groundbreaking work with enormous implications for understanding the depth and intensity of hostility to freedom embedded in the American left and its connections to international threats to our survival."

-- Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, Fox News contributor, and author of numerous bestselling books.

"This fascinating new book by Diana West, a leading expert on the history of American communism, offers intriguing insights into the anti-Trump conspiracy. Ms. West teases out highly interesting, and disturbing, facts about many of the anti-Trump conspiracy players. But more importantly, she lays out a larger framework in which to view the philosophical drivers of many of the conspirators, who fall into the Marxist/globalist/collectivist political camp. This is in direct opposition to the capitalist/nationalist/individualistic political camp led by Donald Trump. Trump was anathema to these individuals because he represented an existential threat to the globalist enterprise, which has been so long in the making." 

-- William Marshall, Senior Investigator, Judicial Watch, and an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government, private, and non-profit sectors for more than 30 years.

"Once again, Diana West, as she did in American Betrayal, has scored a home run for truth. Diana's research and analysis are superb. The Red Thread provides an excellent opportunity for Americans to learn the identity of those whose agenda is not in keeping with America's patriotic ideals, and who would undermine its very existence. The Red Thread should be required reading for true patriots who serve in America's government, not to mention those who attend the nation's military academies and war college. Diana West is to be saluted for her patriotism, dedication and her passion for truth."

-- John Molloy, OSJ, Chairman, National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition

"Diana West exposes a red thread running through the campaign to unseat President Trump. It is the story of a socialist cabal painting itself in false patriotic colors, camouflaged behind a facade of national concern. West shows that the conspirators’ true ideals are opposed to nation and Constitution. Yet it is more than a conspiracy she reveals. It is the latest iteration of the same old phenomenon of subversion, driven forward by what Whttaker Chambers called “man’s second oldest faith.”

— Jeff Nyquist, author of Origins of the Fourth World War

"Diana West's analysis of the ideological backgrounds of the DOJ and IC coup plotters against President Trump is powerful, even incontrovertible, evidence of their guilt.  Anyone who reads the Mueller Report or listens to MSNBC, etc. should also read The Red Thread as an antidote!"

-- Dr. Peter Pry, executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security. He served on the Congressional EMP Commission as chief of staff, the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA. He is author of Blackout Wars.

"Diana West does remarkable work and must not be ignored. Her work is research driven not opinion driven---a rarity in today's world.  It is essential reading."

-- Peter Schweizer, author of Secret Empires and Clinton Cash


Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use
Copyright 2012 by Diana West